>>
>> After today, though, I'm less concerned. Much less concerned.
>
> :-)
>
> As near as I can tell, the announcement is totally vaporware at this
> point, but at least it is from a credible source.
>
The RDFa support is also constrained now, to more or less match
microformat support. Google created its own vocabulary, which is cool.
People can use more than one.
The company has said that it will _gradually_ add in support for other
vocabularies over time. It's not a use what you want annotation, at the
moment, but I have hopes for over time.
> I still maintain that somebody needs to produce an "RDFa for HTML"
> draft specification; the question as to whether that particular
> content needs to be in or separate from the HTML 5 specification are
> secondary, IMHO.
>
I agree, and I believe this is happening. But I think this happening is
where some of the contention arose.
If a person doesn't care about validation, one can use RDFa with few
worries.
Shelley